Irving Gould got control of the company and Jack Tramiel wasn't happy about it, Jack left and formed Atari. We know that much. A book isn't going to tell motives or things that are not discussed. I saw Jack Tramiel interviews on why he left Commodore and he wouldn't say other than he wasn't happy which could mean anything.

Irving Gould was a partner and he invested $400,000. He later got control of the company.

If you wanted to steal a company, what would you do? You would run it into the ground so the owner couldn't pay his bills. A company that isn't doing good is worth less. Right? The value of a company goes down and you could get a billion dollar company for a steal.
Could this be figured out today? Can anyone with hindsight see it? These are just some questions that I hope other people can look at and answer. Did Irving have a hand in it?

My understanding is that Mr. Gould had ultimate control anyways as Chairman since there wouldn't have been CBM without his money. Mr. Tramiel was free to run the company from what I could tell and as attested by his reputation for marketing and internal management styles. I also believe that Jack Tramiel didn't believe that anyone should use the company as their own piggy bank so to speak, in short Jack paid for his own meals in the company cafeteria while Irving flew around in the Pet Jet. I also believe that few people could have done what Tramiel did, whether you agree with how he did it or not, and Irving Gould would have known this also. One of the "rumors" they tried on us was that now that we made 10 Billion we needed someone (different) to get us to 100 billion. (Might have been 1 and 10 billion, I forget which milestone we had just cleared.) We didnt believe that rumor so they went on and tried another, we didnt believe it because few could have done what the boss had done and dominate the US home computer market so thouroughly. Yes this is not what Apple wpould have you believe.